Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Tell Me Why Americans Are "Pre-Revolutionary" Again?

It is no secret that the federal government is not popular.  All manner of recent polls confirm this and suggest an even bleaker view - Americans go beyond merely not liking, they actively fear their government.  I discussed this sentiment in the context of the 2012 presidential race, citing Pat Caddell's view that Americans are "pre-revolutionary" in mood. There are literary thousands of examples of government run amok to explain why Americans feel this way, but you only have to look at the rhetoric of a President who claims the desire and intention to "go around" Congress to advance his agenda, or a (thankfully former) Governor who suggested we suspend elections, to see the genesis of Americans' fears.

The worsening of this mood has baleful consequences (very baleful if you are a leftist).  People who distrust government wish, at the very least, that it not get bigger and more intrusive. Thus, since 2010 Americans have voted for de facto gridlock.  People who distrust government greatly make contingency plans from reining in economic risk taking to bracing for a break down in law and order (gun sales, ammo shortage, anyone?).

If you were an elected official and this fear and distrust was counter-productive to your goals, you'd seek to allay these fears, no?  At the least, you wouldn't make half-baked decisions that would continue to fuel these fears, right?  Not really.

President Obama’s pick to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency once said that a “majority of white voters” would never vote for a black candidate and that they should be excluded from “the democratic process.”

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”
According to a contemporaneous report of the hearing published by the Cybercast News Service, Watt said that black voters — unlike whites — don’t have “an absolute commitment” to voting for a candidate based on race.
“Black people have not had the luxury of being able to say, ‘Under no circumstances will I vote for a white candidate,’” Watt said in his remarks.
Watt is, indisputably in my view, an abomination by virtue of holding these views.  He also happens to be a buffoon, whites have amply demonstrated an ability to vote across racial lines, while, it must be said, blacks have not.  So, we've got a doubly whammy of repulsiveness here, idiocy combined with a racialist, fascistic worldview.  Triple whammy actually, as we now add into the equation a position of substantial authority. A mentally deficient, racialist fascist in a position of substantial authority in the federal government with sway over a large sector of the economy...?  Was there no other person around who do the job at the FHFA?  Of course there was.  So the decision to appoint Watt was either an out-to-lunch decision or a deliberately antagonistic one.

And people wonder why the government is unpopular and its citizens are angry and wary.

UPDATE:  And today comes this poll. While armed revolt is a consideration, thankfully, only among 29%, what is more interesting, and indicative, is that only 47% don't see it as necessary.  So less than half have taken it off the table.  "Pre-revolutionary" indeed.


Post a Comment

<< Home